So I think I first noticed this in an article at The Nation entitled "
Carly Fiorina is running to be 2016's Sarah Palin."
Here is an excerpt:
For a movement that so often disdains identity politics, conservatives sure love to deploy them. In 2008, Sarah Palin’s vice presidential nomination was a risible, tone-deaf attempt to capture women voters disappointed by Hillary Clinton’s primary loss. After Barack Obama became president, the GOP attempted to shed its overwhelmingly white image by putting the clownish Michael Brown (Editor's note: Should be Michael Steele.)
in charge of the party. And now, Carly Fiorina is counting on conservatives’ desire to counter excitement over Clinton’s renewed ascendency with a lady candidate of their own.
Then something similar popped up over The New Republic in an article entitled "
Sarah Palin 2.0."
Here is a portion of what they had to say:
Though she’s committed fewer blunders than Palin, Fiorina does have some obvious similarities to the former vice-presidential candidate. Both favor words like “outsider” and “tough,” and allow themselves to be cast as a woman who does it all: They’re breadwinner moms with business savvy and enough charisma to make their raw ambition palatable. Similarly, both women’s careers have been marred by major professional failures: Fiorina’s firing from Hewlett-Packard and Palin’s "bridge to nowhere" (which, ironically, Fiorina initially defended).
Even the Weekly Standard chimed in with a piece called "
What Do Sarah Palin and Carly Fiorina Have In Common?"
Here is what they had to say:
Whatever one makes of either one of them, the similarities between Sarah Palin and Carly Fiorina (who’s just announced she’s running for president) stop more or less at the chromosomal level. Fiorina is an accomplished (if controversial) businesswoman; Palin, a half-term governor and television star. Fiorina is a graduate of Stanford (with a degree in philosophy and medieval history) and MIT (with a master’s in management); Palin received a degree in, alas, journalism. Fiorina is an unusually articulate for a candidate for public office; Palin is . . . well, Sarah Palin.
That is especially damning as the Weekly Standard is the brainchild of Bill Kristol who is often blamed for discovering Palin and bringing her to national attention.
The finally there is this from
The Hill:
There is a difference between Fiorina and Palin. I will confess to having a soft spot for Palin as a person. I suspect if I knew her, I would like her, which I mean as a compliment even though she is not appropriately credentialed to be president or vice president. Fiorina, by contrast, was cruel and heartless to her workers when she was CEO of Hewlett-Packard.
Let me first assure this reporter that if he knew Sarah Palin it is seriously doubtful he would like her.
However he is spot on with his characterization of Fiorina.
As we all know anytime a politician is compared to Sarah Palin that is not a good thing for them.
However it might simply be that people are doing it so often in Fiorina's case because she is a conservative with a vajayjay. Which would be unfair.
However Fiorina is a conservative with a vajayjay who also almost destroyed the reputation of Hewlett Packard while she was there, treated her subordinates like garbage, and is known to be driven to pursue power at all costs.
Oh and here's her current scorecard over at
Politifact:
Yeah, the comparison is appropriate.
